Top Menu

Salah Al-Nasrawi: A Lesson From Iran: Islamic Sharia is Flexible After All

Stop Stoning

It might surprise many to learn the Qur’an never commands “stoning,” though death by stoning is specified as a punishment numerous times in the Bible:

For taking “accursed things”

Achan … took of the accursed thing. … And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. … So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals

“If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she dieDeuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you … that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them … Then shalt thou … stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he dieDeuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stonesLeviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, the man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded MosesNumbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die1 Kings 21:10

In the modern world, it’s Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, that have become infamous for brutal punishments, including stoning. Ignoring dozens of Muslim-majority countries that don’t engage in such practices, anti-Muslim bigots constantly shine a spotlight on the most regressive regimes, leaving the public with the impression harsh punishments are an inevitable feature of Islamic Law.

Yet Iran has recently passed a law abolishing stoning as a punishment for adultery. As fixated as the major media usually are on that country, the story has attracted relatively scant coverage–and predictably, it’s been completely ignored by hate sites devoted to demonizing Muslims and generating hysteria about “creeping sharia.”

A lesson from Iran: Islamic Sharia is flexible after all

by Salah Al-Nasrawi, Ahram (Egypt)

A new law by the Islamic Republic of Iran to abolish stoning to death for adulterers passed last month has been received with a lot of skepticism in the West and little attention in the Arab and Islamic world.

But the ruling could have a significant bearing on the debate about the role of Islamic Sharia as Islamic groups gain power throughout the Middle East with many of them aspire to see Islamic jurisdiction as the law of the land.

Iran’s Guardian Council and Iranian parliament have approved an amendment to the country’s penal code by removing all executions by stoning which will come into effect once signed by the country’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under Iran’s old penal code, stoning to death was one of the sentences applied for adultery. Iranian activists who campaigned against the practice said at least 99 men and women have been executed by stoning over the last 30 years.

The stoning sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 45-year-old Iranian woman, on charges of adultery and murder in 2006 has turned the spotlight on Iran as one of very few countries which adopts Sharia, or Islamic law.

The concept was equated in the West and among Muslim secularists with a variety of retributions including stoning of adulterers, chopping of limbs of thieves, death in blasphemy cases and restrictions on rights of women and minorities.

Ashtiani’s was convicted of having an “illicit relationship” with two men after the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 99 lashes. The verdict led to an international condemnation which has made Tehran delay carrying out the sentence.

While Ashtiani’s case points to a larger divide between the West and Iran, the punishment of the mother of two has highlighted how the contentious issue is a practice that has largely survived through centuries’ long cultural heritage.

The sentence, and now its abolishment, renewed a theological controversy in Islam on whether the harsh punishment is God’s commands, or a man-made effort to interpret Islamic Sharia, or Islamic law.

The case has spilled over into larger and even more complex issues within Islamic discourse, such as what consist Sharia, and if it is compatible with modern day human rights standards.

Most of Iran’s legal code was based on the constitution enacted under guidance of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled secular regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The document declared Iran as a Muslim nation whose laws are derived from Islamic Sharia, which it defines as God’s “exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate”, based on God’s commands in Quran and Sunnah, which is Prophet’s Mohammad’s teachings.

Sharia is still wide open for judgment under Islamic principle of Ijtihad. The term means an endeavor of a Muslim scholar to derive a rule of divine law from the Quran and Prophet Mohammad’s heritage.

Since the Islamic revolution some Iranian clerics have said stoning should be stopped because it may harm the reputation of Islam or the Islamic nation.

Others believed stoning is a divine punishment.

Some Muslim scholars believe stoning to death was never contemplated by Islam as a punishment for the act of adultery since the Quran does not even mention the word “stoning” or ‘death by stoning in any of its verses.

According to the Holy book of Islam all sexual intercourse outside the marital bond is considered sinful. Some scholars say Quran makes no distinction between adultery and fornication; in both cases the punishment is flogging to those found guilty.

In Quran verse “The Light (24:2) says: “The adulteress and the adulterer shall each be given a hundred lashes. Let no pity for them to cause you to disobey Allah.”

On the other hand, many Islamic legal scholars and judges agree that the Quranic text does not refer to executions by stoning but state they are part of the Sunnah.  They say there is no necessity that all orders of Sharia to be mentioned in Quran, one by one.

Other clerics say that even if stoning was practiced by Prophet Mohammad and his immediate followers it cannot be enforced nowadays. They believe stoning is a part of Islamic law but only the Prophet and his immediate successors are authorized or qualified to order and implement it.

In theory, stoning to death is still enacted in laws of countries which apply Islamic Sharia, such as Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. It has been also carried out in the previous Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and some parts of Nigeria.

Iran’s amendment of the penal code is believed to have been adopted in response to international criticism of its violations of human rights. It also coincides with mounting tension with the West over its nuclear program and increasing fear of a military conflict.

Critics, however, say the new code still considers adultery for married persons as a crime, although it doesn’t designate any specific punishment for it, leaving that for the judge to rely on a fatwa by a reliable cleric. Human rights organizations argued that such measures were inadequate and insisted that real change in the law is necessary.

Whether Iran wants to improve its human rights record or it is trying to ward off increasing Western pressure, the revision of its Islamic law now remains highly significant from both political and theological standpoints.

As Islamic groups gain power throughout the Middle East, the role of Sharia is coming under increased focus. Modernist forces in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia were shocked by the remarkable collective rise to power of these parties and the sudden transformation of their civil states into states with budding theocratic inclinations.

While fundamentalist movements, such Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Tunisia’s Enhhada Party and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco speak about a broadly defined application of Sharia as “a main source” for legislation, other ultra-orthodox groups want a full-fledged Islamic legal code.

Yet there are increasing signs that show Islamic groups in these countries want more religion than previously admitted. Multiple reports and research works are suggesting that these countries are evolving towards more conservative rules and an Islamisation of social life.

There have already been calls from some Islamists to close down the tourist sites and to impose Islamic dress codes on the costal resorts. Women are also worried that political Islam might impose new restrictions on them such as forcing them to wear the Hijab (veil) and restrict their personal freedom.

Christians, a religious minority in the countries recently taken over by Islamists, complain of more intolerance and say they fear for their safety after increased cases of sectarian violence and discrimination.

Many secularists and liberals in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and other countries now want to see their next constitutions to have solid guarantees of democratic and civic commitments.

Here comes the Iranian experiment of abolishing a deep rooted Islamic concept of retribution and the lesson to be drawn from that by newly empowered Islamic groups in these three Arab countries and perhaps in others that will soon follow.

In Egypt, where the debate will open soon on drafting a new constitution, focus will increase on the role of Sharia in the country’s political and social life, especially in balancing Islam with democracy, personal freedom and modernity.

Although it is generally agreed among mainstream political groups that Sharia is the point of reference in legislation, the challenge will remain about how to distinguish what directly comes from the Quran and Sunnah from man-made interpretation of God’s revelations and the Prophet’s teachings.

Article 2 of Iran’s constitution provides such a room for maneuverability by combining both Ijtihad by qualified Faqih, or scholar(s) and the resort to “sciences, arts and the most advanced results of human experience” with Quran and Sunnah in legislation.

Under such overwhelming circumstances, the most liberal, secularists and reform minded Egyptian Muslims can argue for is that any stipulation of Islamic Sharia in the new constitution should provide flexibility, so that Islamic laws should be viewed and amended in light of time and changing circumstances.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Jasmine

    Actually, Iran has been planning to Omit Stoning from their Penal Law since 2009.

    http://shahrzaad.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/stoning-to-be-omitted-from-iran-penal-laws/

  • VRM

    So finally International and internal pressures worked and Iranian govt abolished stoning to death penalty( if the news is true)
    I am relived and congratulate Govt. of Iran for taking such a vice step and hope they will soon stop executing gays and apostates as well.
    I also hope that KSA will show equal wisdom and stop public beheading, crucifixion, amputation of limbs and witch hunt and guarantee absolute freedom of conscience.
    BTW danios, what is your take on Wife beating, sanctioned by quran?

  • Géji

    ali says : “Yeah and that site you gave on how to pray is completely bogus. It does NOT TELL the rules of prayer, fasting and charity. It does NOT TELL the posture, or in general HOW to pray. It does NOT TELL which surah’s and duas to use (for example in vitr prayer of isha, we recite dua qanoot, this comes from hadith), it does NOT TELL about Sunnat or Nafl prayers, nor salat al tasbeeh. NONE of these come from the Quran.”

    You’re right on this, and I agree with you 100%. But the prophet prayed himself since the very beginning he’d received the word of Allah. Those following him prayed in action with him as he did from the very beginning. I know it’s wrong just as you do, for anyone to touch Islam’s fundamental and focal point after Shahada, the Salah. I do not believe for second, the prophet of Islam and the immediate believers of his message prayed “three” time a day as suggesting the ones you referring-to. It’s think there’s something vile and offensive to even suggesting that. But the way you label them “cult” is also vile and offensive. You cannot also use the prayer talking point, to suggest *all* hadith is valid.

  • Géji

    @Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says: “Anyone got any pop corn ? … Listen guys and gals, if you are not careful you will show the Islamaphobes that the all powerful monolith they believe Islam to be in reality DOES NOT EXIST. Many millions of $$$ and €€€€€ and £3.54 have been spent trying to prove to these nuts in the USA that all muslims are the same everywhere.”

    LOL. Sir David, in that case, then per-favor get to your nearest local store and get that damn pop corn o’right, we Muslims are about to showcase some of that monolith signature of our, and may we prove Islamophobes right so as to pump even more and more millions. Enjoy the show.

    —————-

    @ali says: “It’s amazing the way people think. For the future, don’t bother linking to Quranist sites, only makes you look like a bigger fool.”

    First me dear ali, we may make this exchange more constructive for us and more interesting for others, if we were to drop the name calling. No one has attacked your-person to call you “fool”, nor no one has called your position “cult”. So neither should you. And thought I myself personally have no problem with the word “cult” itself, for I believe there’s nothing wrong with the core and original definition of the word anyway, any ideology for instance that sees itself as having sets of “ideals” that people follows, may be refer to as ‘cult’ without having any negative connotation. Nonetheless, the way you’re using-it to dismiss and belittle those that reject your views, is the current distorted version of the word that conveys insultive connotations. Thus as such my friend, it will neither help your-debate-position nor that-of your own reference to the word “bigger fool”, suggesting for instance, guess who’s the bigger fool here?

    And anyway, though I’ll admit I haven’t seen personally you stating, nonetheless by your posts, I think you’re suggesting to be Muslim and talking as such. So then also, what’s with you attributing insultive connotations to Allah’s words – i.e., Qur’an?. Using terms such as “Quran Alone Cult” or “Quranists” as insulting points? — Sorry but for such, I cannot help but get the impression that your abusive tone using those terms, implies carrying similar disrespect and insultive connotation such as abusive extremist Islamophobes usage of the word “Quran”, such as – “Quranimals”, and so on. — And what’s wrong with the words “Quran Alone” or “Quranist” anyway? Wasn’t that precisely after all what the prophet of Islam himself relied upon more than anything else in his time? I.E., The Words of Allah – I.E., “Quran Alone”, thus making him by extension in that sense “Quranist”? — Therefore, if we put aside you using the word “Quran Alone” or “Quranist” as emotional insulting points to the “cult” you’re referring-to, if we put aside your disagreement or rejection of their interpretations. If we Muslims were honest with ourselves, if anything, isn’t what what we refer the prophet of Islam was, precisely “Quranist”, or “Quran Alone [sic] cult members”? for he has followed and replied upon nothing BUT Qur’an – the very words of Allah the Almighty. And in less you’re implying the prophet of Islam relied upon something else other than the Qur’an? then I’ll friendly suggest for the sake of God the Almighty, not to use His words – Qur’an, as insulting weapon against those you deemed “cult” anyway. Just friendly suggestion that’s all.

    > “A majority of the people here, including ALL Muslims, are followers of the Hadith”

    First of all, and I mean this the nicest way, but your sentence above? seriously make no sense to me. Let me give first the definition of the word “followers” you’d use. Followers: – Those who subscribes and adheres- to a belief or idea.

    So, aside “ALL Muslims”, are the rest of – “the majority of the people here” you referred-to as – “followers of Hadith” – the non-Muslims thus? if yes, so how are they as non-Muslims subscribing and adhering to a hadith-belief that’s not even theirs as – “followers of Hadith”.

    > “Even Loonwatch writers frequently quote from hadith.”

    Though I’m not saying Loonwatch writers never “quote from hadith” at all. Nevertheless, I think it’s wrong of you to say – “Even Loonwatch writers frequently quote from hadith.” – I don’t think they do or even mention “frequently” hadith in their argument against Islamophobia. Although I don’t like bets, if anything I’ll put my bet that on the contrary, they ‘frequently quote from’- Qur’an to refute most Islamophobic talking-points against Islam. I think they quote hadith when Islamophobes bring-up the hadith argument. In fact, I saw some of them referring to Qur’an as – The Supreme-Law-of-Islam. By the way, do you have a problem with the latter statement? If yes, then please I’ll appreciate if you state why, thanks.

    > “Quranists are KNOWN to screw around with translations. NO ONE takes them, or their work seriously, because its all FALSE and MADE UP”

    First of all, the word “Quranists” itself is “FALSE and MADE UP”, and should not be taking “seriously”. And you using-it in insulting reference, for the first 5 letter of the word refers precisely to Allah’s words, makes it even more – blasphemous

    And FYI, I’m not “Quranist” in the insulting sense you imply. I’m not “Quranist” in the sense of “cult” you’re referring-to. But you can go-ahead label me if you want, and I’ll be nothing but proud, if I’m – Qur’an[ist] – for being first and foremost follower of Qur’an. For believing the Supreme-Law of Islam that all are secondary-to when it comes to Islam, is none but Allah’s words – Qur’an . Just like the prophet Muhammad did in his time. —

    Only to be follower gazillions times behind, “hadiths” – that was NOT written in Muhammad’s time, that are ONLY based on other people’s he said she said talking-points – with the utmost critical and analistic way. Never, ever letting supersede The-Word-of-Allah, The-Supreme-Law-of-Islam – Qur’an.

    > “For 1400 years we’ve been following hadiths. Are you trying to tell me for 1400 years we’ve been astray? That all of our scholars and Imaams are false? The Quran Alone movement began in the 80′s by a self proclaimed prophet, Rashad Khalifa. All of this hadith rejection roots back to him. Does logic make any sense to you?”

    I cannot help but think your paragraph here remains me a lot of the Surah Ibrahim (Abraham) – سورة ابراهيم

    - Their messengers said, “Can there be doubt about Allah , Creator of the heavens and earth? He invites you that He may forgive you of your sins, and He delays your death for a specified term.” They said, “You are not but men like us who wish to avert us from what our fathers were worshipping. So bring us a clear authority.”

    -Their messengers said to them, “We are only men like you, but Allah confers favor upon whom He wills of His servants. It has never been for us to bring you evidence except by permission of Allah . And upon Allah let the believers rely.

    > “The Prophet Muhammed’s wife Aisha, is responsible for 1/3 of all hadiths, was she also astray??”

    ali, no one is saying the people following Hadith are “astray”. But you seem to suggest those that follow Qur’an first, are “cult”. And isn’t that what Aisha-(r.a) herself was, following first and foremost the word of Allah, i.e., Qur’an? And if Aisha is “responsible” for 1/3 of hadiths, then why for example, her ages when she married prophet Muhammad so contradictory in them?

  • Michael Elwood

    @islamispeace

    “Surah 33:53 does have the word “hadith” in it. However, the context of the verse shows that it is not referring to the “hadiths”, because the word “liḥadīthin” can also mean idle conversation.”

    It can mean talk/conversation. However, the word “hadith” in the context of 33:53, has the same meaning as the word “hadith” in the context of the hadith below:

    قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَقَالَ ابْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ إِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ
    قَدْ أَكْثَرَ وَاللَّهُ الْمَوْعِدُ وَيَقُولُونَ مَا بَالُ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنْصَارِ لاَ يَتَحَدَّثُونَ مِثْلَ أَحَادِيثِهِ وَسَأُخْبِرُكُمْ
    عَنْ ذَلِكَ إِنَّ إِخْوَانِي مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ كَانَ يَشْغَلُهُمْ عَمَلُ أَرَضِيهِمْ وَإِنَّ إِخْوَانِي مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ
    كَانَ يَشْغَلُهُمُ الصَّفْقُ بِالأَسْوَاقِ وَكُنْتُ أَلْزَمُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى مِلْءِ بَطْنِي
    فَأَشْهَدُ إِذَا غَابُوا وَأَحْفَظُ إِذَا نَسُوا وَلَقَدْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا ‏”‏ أَيُّكُمْ
    يَبْسُطُ ثَوْبَهُ فَيَأْخُذُ مِنْ حَدِيثِي هَذَا ثُمَّ يَجْمَعُهُ إِلَى صَدْرِهِ فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَنْسَ شَيْئًا سَمِعَهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏
    فَبَسَطْتُ بُرْدَةً عَلَىَّ حَتَّى فَرَغَ مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ ثُمَّ جَمَعْتُهَا إِلَى صَدْرِي فَمَا نَسِيتُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ
    شَيْئًا حَدَّثَنِي بِهِ وَلَوْلاَ آيَتَانِ أَنْزَلَهُمَا اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ مَا حَدَّثْتُ شَيْئًا أَبَدًا ‏{‏ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ
    مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى‏}‏ إِلَى آخِرِ الآيَتَيْنِ ‏.

    That’s why I reference the hadith in my previous post. I was hoping that someone other than me would appreciated the irony of the similar context, and usage.

    “So contrary to Michael Elwood’s claim, the verse is not saying that hadiths were rejected from the beginning of Islam.”

    My claim doesn’t rest on that single verse. For a more detailed argument concerning the position of hadiths in Islam, consult Prof. Aisha Musa’s “Hadith as Scripture:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=W9Tz_4g_oSYC&lpg=PP1&dq=hadith%20as%20scripture&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=hadith%20as%20scripture&f=false

  • islamispeace

    @Ali and Michael Elwood,

    Surah 33:53 does have the word “hadith” in it. However, the context of the verse shows that it is not referring to the “hadiths”, because the word “liḥadīthin” can also mean idle conversation. See:

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Hdv#%2833:53:26%29

    So contrary to Michael Elwood’s claim, the verse is not saying that hadiths were rejected from the beginning of Islam. It was simply telling the believers not to hang around the prophet’s home to speak to his wives after they had eaten but instead to disperse to their own homes. Even if the word was referring to the actual hadiths, all it would be saying is that the believers should not hang around the prophet’s home for such things, especially to converse with this wives. This is made clear when we read the tafsir of Ibn Abbas:

    “(But if ye are invited, enter, and, when, your meal is ended) when you have finished eating, (then disperse) then leave. (Linger not for conversation) with the wives of the Prophet (pbuh). (Lo! That) coming in, sitting down and having conversation with the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) (would cause annoyance to the Prophet) Allah bless him and give him peace, (and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go)) or not to come in the first place; (but Allah is not shy of the Truth) Allah is not shy to command you to leave and not go in his rooms without his permission. (And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything) and when you speak with them, (ask it of them) speak with them (from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts) i.e. from doubts. (And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the Messenger of Allah) by entering his rooms without his permission and conversing with his wives, (nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him) after his death. This verse was revealed about Talhah Ibn ‘Ubaydullah who had in mind to marry ‘A’ishah after the death of the Prophet (pbuh). (Lo! That) your open declaration and intention to marry the Prophet’s wives after his death (in Allah’s sight would be an enormity) it is an enormous sin which merits severe punishment.” See http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=53&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

  • islamispeace

    @Sir David

    Well, perhaps its time we stop caring what the islamophobes think. Seriously, who gives a crap what those idiots think? I certainly don’t. The fact is that I am not here to please them or to do what they want me to do. I serve Allah (swt), not some brainless group of thugs and bigots.

    There are certainly many interpretive traditions within Islam, but these are on the minor issues. The major issues, such as issues of faith, are not negotiable. Hence, those who reject certain aspects of Islam, are not really Muslims and it would be incorrect to appeal to the “Islam is not a monolith” argument to try to excuse those people.

  • Michael Elwood

    @ali

    “It’s amazing the way people think.”

    Tell me about it!

    “For the future, don’t bother linking to Quranist sites, only makes you look like a bigger fool.”

    I linked to the article to show you that our practices come from the Quran, not hadith.

    “A majority of the people here, including ALL Muslims, are followers of the Hadith. Even Loonwatch writers frequently quote from hadith.”

    Don’t assume what the majority of the people here believe. If the majority of the people here follow the hadith, it doesn’t matter. If the majority of the people here follow the Quran, it doesn’t matter. It’s a fallacy (ad populum) to think a proposition is true because the majority of the people espouse it.

    “Its because we’re COMMANDED to.”

    No, we’re not commanded to follow hadith. Your own “reliable” hadiths say that Muhammad left nothing but the Quran, and that if anyone writes anything besides the Quran they should erase it.

    “Quranists are KNOWN to screw around with translations. NO ONE takes them, or their work seriously, because its all FALSE and MADE UP. The word “hadith” is not even in the arabic language in the verse 33:53, the Quranists made that up.”

    Here’s 33:53 in Arabic:

    يايها الذين ءامنوا لا تدخلوا بيوت النبى الا ان يوذن لكم الى طعام غير نظرين انىه ولكن اذا دعيتم فادخلوا فاذا طعمتم فانتشروا ولا مستنسين ****لحديث**** ان ذلكم كان يوذى النبى فيستحى منكم والله لا يستحى من الحق واذا سالتموهن متعا فسلوهن من وراء حجاب ذلكم اطهر لقلوبكم وقلوبهن وما كان لكم ان توذوا رسول الله ولا ان تنكحوا ازوجه من بعده ابدا ان ذلكم كان عند الله عظيما

    I put the word hadith (or more accurately, li hadith) between asterisks.

    “So, you’re telling me that Yusuf Ali, Sahi International, Pickthall, Dr Ghali, MH Shakir, Muhsin Khan, Mirza Abdul Fazl, Maulana Muhammed Ali, and so on, have PURPOSELY left out the translation for hadith??? Does that make any sene at all to you?”

    No, they did translate the word hadith. The translation That I used left the word untranslated.

    “For 1400 years we’ve been following hadiths. Are you trying to tell me for 1400 years we’ve been astray? That all of our scholars and Imaams are false? The Quran Alone movement began in the 80′s by a self proclaimed prophet, Rashad Khalifa. All of this hadith rejection roots back to him. Does logic make any sense to you?”

    Not all of us have been following hadiths for the past 1400 years. And we didn’t just start following the Quran in the 80′s. If you want to know more about the history of this, I suggest the book “Hadith as Scripture”:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=W9Tz_4g_oSYC&lpg=PP1&dq=hadith%20as%20scripture&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=hadith%20as%20scripture&f=false

    “The Prophet Muhammed’s wife Aisha, is responsible for 1/3 of all hadiths, was she also astray??”

    No, but the people who posthumously attributed “1/3 of all hadiths” to her were.

    “Yeah and that site you gave on how to pray is completely bogus. It does NOT TELL the rules of prayer, fasting and charity. It does NOT TELL the posture, or in general HOW to pray. It does NOT TELL which surah’s and duas to use (for example in vitr prayer of isha, we recite dua qanoot, this comes from hadith), it does NOT TELL about Sunnat or Nafl prayers, nor salat al tasbeeh. ****NONE of these come from the Quran.****”

    Exactly! :-)

    “And please, use your brain. Abraham was an example for HIS PEOPLE OF HIS TIME. Every Prophet sent was for their own SPECIFIC time. The Prophet Muhammed was sent for his time, which includes our time. He is the LAST MESSANGER for us to follow so he is the PERFECT EXAMPLE for us.”

    The Quran uses the same description, “good example (اسوة حسنة),” for both Abraham and Muhammad (see 33:21 and 60:4, 6). And, contrary to what you say, 60:6 says that Abraham is a good example for everyone, not just the people of his time. Since you like “popular translations” so much, let me quote some:

    Sahih International
    There has certainly been for you in them an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever turns away – then indeed, Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.

    Muhsin Khan
    Certainly, there has been in them an excellent example for you to follow, for those who look forward to (the Meeting with) Allah (for the reward from Him) and the Last Day. And whosoever turn away, then verily, Allah is Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all Praise.

    Pickthall
    Verily ye have in them a goodly pattern for everyone who looketh to Allah and the Last Day. And whosoever may turn away, lo! still Allah, He is the Absolute, the Owner of Praise.

    Yusuf Ali
    There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow,- for those whose hope is in Allah and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly Allah is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise.

    Shakir
    Certainly there is for you in them a good example, for him who fears Allah and the last day; and whoever turns back, then surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised.

    Dr. Ghali
    Indeed you have already had a fair example in them for whoever hopes for Allah and the Last Day. And whoever turns away, then surely Allah, Ever He, is The Ever-Affluent, (Literally: The Ever-Rich) The Ever-Praiseworthy.

    @Sir David

    “Anyone got any pop corn ?
    Listen guys and gals, if you are not careful you will show the Islamaphobes that the all powerful monolith they believe Islam to be in reality DOES NOT EXIST. Many millions of $$$ and €€€€€ and £3.54 have been spent trying to prove to these nuts in the USA that all muslims are the same everywhere. Even Pam Geller is convinced ! ( thats where the £3.54 came in )
    So try to sing from the same ….er …Hymm ..er Nasheed .. sheet”

    If they get anything out of this silly conversation, I hope it’s that we don’t all sing from the same nasheed sheet. . . and that stoning is un-Islamic. :-)

  • Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69

    Anyone got any pop corn ?
    Listen guys and gals, if you are not careful you will show the Islamaphobes that the all powerful monolith they believe Islam to be in reality DOES NOT EXIST. Many millions of $$$ and €€€€€ and £3.54 have been spent trying to prove to these nuts in the USA that all muslims are the same everywhere .
    Even Pam Geller is convinced ! ( thats where the £3.54 came in )
    So try to sing from the same ….er …Hymm ..er Nasheed .. sheet. ;-)

  • ali

    It’s amazing the way people think. For the future, don’t bother linking to Quranist sites, only makes you look like a bigger fool.

    A majority of the people here, including ALL Muslims, are followers of the Hadith. Even Loonwatch writers frequently quote from hadith. Its because we’re COMMANDED to.

    Quranists are KNOWN to screw around with translations. NO ONE takes them, or their work seriously, because its all FALSE and MADE UP. The word “hadith” is not even in the arabic language in the verse 33:53, the Quranists made that up. So, you’re telling me that Yusuf Ali, Sahi International, Pickthall, Dr Ghali, MH Shakir, Muhsin Khan, Mirza Abdul Fazl, Maulana Muhammed Ali, and so on, have PURPOSELY left out the translation for hadith??? Does that make any sene at all to you?

    For 1400 years we’ve been following hadiths. Are you trying to tell me for 1400 years we’ve been astray? That all of our scholars and Imaams are false? The Quran Alone movement began in the 80′s by a self proclaimed prophet, Rashad Khalifa. All of this hadith rejection roots back to him. Does logic make any sense to you?

    The Prophet Muhammed’s wife Aisha, is responsible for 1/3 of all hadiths, was she also astray??

    Yeah and that site you gave on how to pray is completely bogus. It does NOT TELL the rules of prayer, fasting and charity. It does NOT TELL the posture, or in general HOW to pray. It does NOT TELL which surah’s and duas to use (for example in vitr prayer of isha, we recite dua qanoot, this comes from hadith), it does NOT TELL about Sunnat or Nafl prayers, nor salat al tasbeeh. NONE of these come from the Quran.

    And please, use your brain. Abraham was an example for HIS PEOPLE OF HIS TIME. Every Prophet sent was for their own SPECIFIC time. The Prophet Muhammed was sent for his time, which includes our time. He is the LAST MESSANGER for us to follow so he is the PERFECT EXAMPLE for us.

  • fox news

    The tone of this article killed it though. This “human rights” is made as the absolute standard the world should adopt. But who decided this “human rights” is the absolute standard? Western minds with their philosophical and moral inclinations. A Muslim who make “human rights” codified by some non-muslim as absolute standard over Islamic sources has ejected himself out of islam to worship the guy who codified the human rights.

  • Michael Elwood

    @ali

    “Michael, you PURPOSELY gave a MISTRANSLATED VERSE. Here are 5 translations from the most popular translators”

    The only substantive difference between the translation I gave, and the ones you gave, is that the word hadith is left untranslated. Now, ask yourself, how can you mistranslate something you haven’t translated?

    “Nice try there, Quranists are KNOWN to screw around with translations, because they hate hadiths.”

    You’re the one pretending not to know what the word hadith means, but I’m the one screwing around? :-)

    “Yes, there are RELAIBLE hadiths that command stoning for adulterers AND rapists.”

    No, there aren’t reliable hadiths that command stoning for adulterers and rapists. And repeating this piffle won’t make it so.

    “Like I said before, much of our info on fasting, prayer and charity ALL COMES from Hadith.”

    Our info on how to pray, fast, etc, comes from the Quran, not hadith:

    http://19.org/898/sala/

    “Like I also said before, the Quran COMMANDS us to follow the Prophet”

    And like I said before, following the prophet means following the Quran (ironically, your “reliable” hadiths agree). You quoted 33:21, which says that the prophet is a “good example” to follow. Are you aware that the Quran says that Abraham is also a “good example” to follow (60:4-6)? If the good example set by Muhammad necessitates Muhammad’s hadith, why wouldn’t the good example set by Abraham necessitate Abraham’s hadith? Obviously, following both of their examples means obeying God, not obeying Bukhari.

    “Another thing Quranists (or Quran Alone Cult) do is give unrelaible and irrelevant hadiths as a shock effect.”

    How much you wanna bet that the “unreliable” hadiths that I quoted exist in the same Books that your “reliable” hadiths about stoning are in? How much confidence shoud we have in hadith collectors if my “unreliable” hadiths can slip into their “reliable” collections?

    “There’s about a dozen sites dedicated to Quran Alone cult members, and on their site you’ll find the most idiotic info and lies.”

    “Quran Alone” Muslims aren’t immune from error. However, it’s not easy coming up with lies more idiotic than the ones about monkeys and goats.

    “Michael, we proper Muslims already know who lies and cheats about our religion, so don’t make a fool of yourself.”

    Thanks for the advice. :-)

  • ali

    Michael, you PURPOSELY gave a MISTRANSLATED VERSE. Here are 5 translations from the most popular translators: http://quran.com/33/53

    Nice try there, Quranists are KNOWN to screw around with translations, because they hate hadiths. Yes, they are a TEENY, TINY, minority whom follow Rashad Khalifa, a self proclaimed Porphet who began his movement in the 80′s.

    Yes, there are RELAIBLE hadiths that command stoning for adulterers AND rapists.

    Like I said before, much of our info on fasting, prayer and charity ALL COMES from Hadith. Like I also said before, the Quran COMMANDS us to follow the Prophet:

    3:31- Say, [O Muhammad], “If you should love Allah , then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

    33:21- “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”

    Another thing Quranists (or Quran Alone Cult) do is give unrelaible and irrelevant hadiths as a shock effect. There’s about a dozen sites dedicated to Quran Alone cult members, and on their site you’ll find the most idiotic info and lies. Michael, we proper Muslims already know who lies and cheats about our religion, so don’t make a fool of yourself.

  • Michael Elwood

    @ali

    “The Quran vs Hadith arrgument is old, and weak.”

    You’re right, the Quran vs Hadith argument is old. It dates back to the time of the Prophet. The Quran says:

    33:53 O you who acknowledge, do not enter the prophet’s homes except if you
    are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you
    are invited, you may enter. When you finish eating, you shall leave,
    without staying to wait for a hadith. This used to annoy the prophet, and
    he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. If you
    ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer
    for your hearts and their hearts. It is not for you to harm God’s
    messenger, nor you should marry his wives after him. This is a gross
    offence with God

    Remember when I said hadith fabricators had no shame? Abu Hurayra, one of the most prolific hadith fabricators, seems to indicate in one of his hadiths that he is the one who annoyed the prophet:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    The people used to say, “Abu Huraira narrates too many narrations.” In fact I used to keep close to Allah’s Apostle and was satisfied with what filled my stomach. I ate no leavened bread and dressed no decorated striped clothes, and never did a man or a woman serve me, and I often used to press my belly against gravel because of hunger, and I used to ask a man to recite a Qur’anic Verse to me although I knew it, so that he would take me to his home and feed me. And the most generous of all the people to the poor was Ja`far bin Abi Talib. He used to take us to his home and offer us what was available therein. He would even offer us an empty folded leather container (of butter) which we would split and lick whatever was in it.

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 62, Hadith 3755

    ‘A’isha reported:

    Don’t you feel surprised at Abu Huraira? He came (one day) and sat beside the nook of my apartment and began to narrate (the hadith of Allah’s Apostle). I was hearing while I was engaged in extolling Allah (reciting Subhan Allah) constantly. He stood up before I finished my repetition of Subhan Allah. if I were to meet him I would have warned him in stern words that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) did not speak so quickly as you talk. Ibn Shihab transmitted on the authority of Ibn Musayyib that Abu Huraira said: People say that Abu Huraira transmits so many ahadith, whereas Allah is the Reckoner, and they say: How is it with Muhajirs and the Ansar that they do not narrate ahadith like him (like Abu Huraira)? Abu Huraira said: I tell you that my brothers from Ansar remained busy with their lands and my brothers Muhajirs were busy in transactions in the bazars, but I always kept myself attached to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) with bare subsistence. I remained present (in the company of the Holy Prophet), whereas they had been absent. I retained in my mind (what the Holy Prophet said), whereas they forgot it. One day Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: He who amongst you spreads the cloth and listens to my talk and would then press it against his chest would never forget anything heard from me. So I spread my mantle and when he had concluded his talk I then pressed it against my chest and so I never forgot after that day anything that he (the Holy Prophet) said. And if these two verses would not have been revealed in the Book I would have never transmitted anything (to anybody):” Those who conceal the clear evidence and the guidance that We revealed” (ii. 159) tip to the last verse.

    Sahih Muslim, Book 45, Hadith 6555

    The Quran says:

    45:6 These are God’s signs that We recite to you with truth. So, in which hadith, after God and His signs, do they acknowledge?

    The “reliable” hadiths say:

    Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:

    Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur’an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:” deliberately” -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.

    Sahih Muslim, Book 56, Hadith 7702

    Narrated `Abdul `Aziz bin Rufai’:

    Shaddad bin Ma’qil and I entered upon Ibn `Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma’qil asked him, “Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur’an)?” He replied. “He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Qur’an).” Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, “The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur’an).

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 66, Hadith 5071

    Now for the million dollar question: If they don’t follow the Quran (which rejects hadith), and they don’t follow “reliable” hadiths (which also rejects hadith), who/what are they following?

    “Hadith rejectors are a cult, which was started up by a self proclaimed prophet of God, Rashad Khalifa.”

    When the verses above were revealed, and when the hadiths above were narrated, no one had ever heard of Rashad Khalifa.

    “Numerous verses in the Quran COMMAND us to follow the Prophet, and yes thats by the Hadith.”

    And the way you follow the Prophet is by following the Quran.

    “99% of the world follow the Hadith as well, because we’re commanded to.”

    I doubt that. But if true, 99% of the world is wrong. :-)

    “And yes, RELIABLE hadiths on stoning for adulterers and rapists are found.”

    There’s nothing reliable about the hadiths that command stoning for adulterers. How can they be reliable when they contradict the Quran and insult our intelligence with tales about monkeys and goats?

  • ali

    Géji

    I don’t think you should tell me what my religion teaches. The Quran vs Hadith arrgument is old, and weak. So don’t try that on me. Hadith rejectors are a cult, which was started up by a self proclaimed prophet of God, Rashad Khalifa. Numerous verses in the Quran COMMAND us to follow the Prophet, and yes thats by the Hadith. 99% of the world follow the Hadith as well, because we’re commanded to. And yes, RELIABLE hadiths on stoning for adulterers and rapists are found. All scholars from the earliest to today agree that stoning is part of Sharia.

    The rules of fasting and prayer ALL come from hadith, so again, don’t try to think I’m a person who doesn’t know their religion.

  • InPeace

    @Michal Elwood:

    Most Islamic according to who?

    Their legal system, constitution, so-on, obviously.

    The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qu’ran and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Prophet Muhammad. The sources of Sharia also include Islamic scholarly consensus developed after Muhammad’s death and analogical reasoning by Muslim judges. Its interpretation by judges in Saudi Arabia is influenced by the medieval texts of the literalist Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence.

    The passage is from Wikipedia. Let me if any of the above is incorrect.

    If a country has a bunch of laws that contradict the Quran on adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, and a host of other things

    Looks like you’re ignoring Islam’s rich interpretative tradition.

    Islam is not a book but a reflection of the beliefs of its adherents more than anything.

    Sorry, but you’re using the same argument that “Islamophobes” are accused of making. You can cite any passage you like from the Koran, but that does not necessarily align with what Islam actually is based on the beliefs and practices of her adherents.

Powered by Loon Watchers